The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who worked as the site warden of D Construction Site, a complex building in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant construction site”), and the victim E is the representative of the Si Construction Project who exercises overall control over the construction site after being transferred all business rights and construction operation rights from F G, a building owner.

A. On May 12, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the operation of the construction site of the victimized person by force by taking measures to seal container doors and windows used by the victim as the office, without the victim’s permission, at the construction site at the above site.

B. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant was notified of dismissal in writing, and at around 07:10 on May 16, 2016, concealed the fact that the Defendant was already dismissed from the office of the head of the site at the above construction site at around 07:10 on May 16, 2016, and read that “the safety appearance and safety belt exists in the site,” and interfered with the operation of the damaged person’s construction site by deception or force by allowing the parts to withdraw at the construction site.

2. As the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted on May 12, 2016, sealed container entrance doors and windows for safety management as a site warden, this is not a interference with business, but a legitimate performance of business.

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant ordered the human father to wear and work safety management outfits, and the human father again made it a clerical error with equipment, and was not dismissed before May 16, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is also a legitimate performance of duties.

3. Determination

A. Whether H’s statement is admissible as evidence or a written confirmation (the page 348 page of the investigation record) prepared by H is prepared in the presence of the complainant E present at the prosecutor’s office after public prosecution. As such, illegally collected evidence is inadmissible, and the witness H is not admissible.